Commentary On The Green Book: How A Society’s Wealth Is Distributed

Consists Of Lectures By The Brother Leader Muammar Al Qadhafi And The Contributions Of Other Writers And Thinkers

Volume II
Commentary On The Green Book
How A Society’s Wealth Is Distributed

Introduction:

The wealth of the community belong to all its members, and everyone is entitled to take advantage of this wealth to benefit from it within the limits of his own without the use of other paid or without and within to satisfy his needs. That each person’s share of this wealth and the right which is equal to the share of other members of the community, and the per capita increases and reduces the increase or decrease the size of this wealth. This is the general rule that should govern the distribution of wealth among members of society whatever their kind, whatever the nature of their specialization, including both the ignorant and the learner, there is no more than each person’s share does not decrease but increase or decrease the size of this wealth, and there is no rationale can be We depend on him to exclude any person from being subject to this rule. If the potential of the community of cement and iron and clay and water, enough to build a house sixteen thousand, for example, and the number of members of the community of sixteen thousand people. Determine the fair apportionment of per capita of the potential home of one. If this happens, we found that individuals may take one of two houses, these houses, it means that members of the community has remained without a home. Whether this happened as a result of complacency and laziness that individual or as a result of the activity of another individual, this is not an acceptable justification for this situation. It is not permissible for any person to take the potential of the community a greater share of the share of other .. And is not entitled to any addition to the individual to acquire an economic activity on the amount of the wealth of society more than enough to satisfy his needs. If the house was the one sufficient to satisfy the need, it means that the acquisition of human being as the two houses is considered an infringement on the need for another human being from the wealth of society. If the rule that establishes the system of society and economic activity will allow imbalances in the distribution process, this rule is corrupt, unjust, and that the legislation which it is based is void must be canceled because it gives legitimacy to the work of the void ab initio.

Revolution and unjust rules :

The revolution requires the discovery rules of the unjust that govern the life of society and the destruction and building rules sound fair community will move accordingly. The task of the revolution, then, is to destroy al-Qaeda corrupt that allow that exceed the human being as a share other than the wealth of society, and replace the base intact, becomes the process calculation, which we referred earlier, is the basis of division the right which can not be challenged by a man sane. The laws that operate on the basis of most human societies in the present day are the laws invalid, because it allows an individual to take more than his right, and thus the process calculations under these laws for improper and unfair. and those laws allow a few members of society from the monopoly of wealth and control through the rest of this monopoly on individuals and servitude. This situation is the same that has enabled some of the Libyans before the announcement that the (land does not belong to one) of the construction of buildings and huts left indwelling for some time.

This situation was not possible without the existence of the law unjust or exploitative law, which allows for one person to take the potential and the wealth of society – which are the property of its members – what is the largest share of the other to build buildings and lease them to the owners of the need. This situation is responsible for the division of society into owners and non-owners.

Common sense condemns the exploitation of the rules:

That common sense condemning those laws corrupt and prove the existence of oppression and exploitation in which to abolish those laws. That if unjust laws prevailed in human society, they spoke a kind of deviation in the psyche of man and in his assessment and his judgment. If we came to the man who owns two houses and asked him about how he gets on the house which is a plus to his need, and do have the right to keep it, knowing that common sense requires cold thing to those who need it, he says: It happened on the second house under his belt and activity, and that he did not not lazy like the others, therefore, has the right to keep the house, and if we analyze this statement to find out what it is based on the legitimacy and found that this analysis is as follows:

This man found the money, which stack in his pocket as a result of his work and activity, enough to buy building materials and pay workers’ wages, and thus productivity factors were used to build a second house. If We have examined the documents and contracts between him and the workers, we found correct and in accordance with the law, the law did not end the stand he has this man not goes beyond that, but fired him free rein in order to build what he wants from home if it was able to get the money to do so. The law also gave the man an incentive to exploitation, where he was allowed to rent for the increased need of homes. But if we wondered where he came from the man’s money?. Is it right to have what he wants from them? We found that the common sense leads us to prove that the man had carried out the theft of the things that were not the right.

Wealth and Money:

The money, as a measure of values, not from being out in the end, money or wealth. Since wealth is the right of all members of society, whatever their origin and whatever the value is supposed to take everyone of them share is equal to the share of other members of the community to use to satisfy needs of the author who takes a larger share of the share of other such wealth is a thief of anything else, because the increase taken by the affect of inferiority in the share of others.

This man, although it is the same is a thief in terms of realism. Because he did not do what is contrary to law, it is considered reasonable as a thief is clear from our analysis of the activity (or clever). If we want to Ntamq to analyze and understand how he made ​​the man from the practice of stealing the legitimate (legally), we found that this occurred as a result of a difference in the value of what takes him and give him, as this assessment is not subject to the same basis, a situation which can not be achieved only under the circumstance monopoly Valencod that jammed in the pocket of the man gave him the monopoly power, and became by the force able to bargain, which is illegal by law, and since the balance under the law of bargaining tend to be the stronger party, the assessment will be in favor of men who has the money.

Suppose that a man who has the money has brought ten workers, and agreed with them on building a house. Suppose that the real value of working hours is one dinar and that is enough to build the home of these workers work for a hundred days at ten hours a day, and that this value is equal to that of a man from the society in which wealth is equivalent to the share of others. Suppose that the workers had signed a paper to prove the absence of theft, according to the law in return for what Atkadouna of pay. If the agreement between this man and workers a fair, the per worker is worth ten dinars a day, because each worker works for ten hours a day, in this case spent the employer amounted to ten thousand dinars in building a house and stay with him any surplus (or profit), therefore will not be able to build another house. And the calculation is correct, where he received all the workers on their right, taking the employer needs a home. However, this does not happen under the rules of the unjust, and laws are corrupt, the situation is monopolistic employer allows him to exploit the workers and to impose conditions on them, and thus able to the employer of the agreement with the workers under the law of exploitation, to be paid five dinars a day, for example, for their work, This means that enable taking up half of the effort of workers in his favor, and thus the total costs incurred by building the house is five thousand dinars, and stay with him five thousand dinars other enough to build another house adds it to the house first. Since it does not need to own this house, this man will lease it to those who need it from members of the community who were unable to take their share of the wealth of society. The employer, which achieves this result, has pre-calculation enables under which the employment of workers ten hours a day compared with a value of only five hours, and thus stole Mjhodhm, but not the theft have been able to build a second home which is considered a profitable venture it is not right to object to a. The second house is, in fact, a legitimate right of the workers who have contributed Bmjhodhm in its creation, and the presence of this house in the possession of the employer has been at the expense of lack of need for these workers, and therefore such a man may take it really is in fact the property of others. This result occurred because the relationship prevailing in the community made ​​the workers’ action when the employer, and enabled him to steal their efforts and their money. What is the justification can be given for this unjust relationship between the employer and the workers?

There is no acceptable justification for this unfair relationship, this relationship does not become legitimate only if it becomes the same exploitation projects.

Awareness and revolution:

The workers understand the meaning when the relationship unjust, and when to realize that their best may be stolen by the employer, they will revolt, demanding their right to production and that they (partners do not hold). This awareness will make workers able to apply this argument. That the need that prompted the workers to give up their right to production, the employer has to do factor that forced and he knows that the employer will be ideally exploited according to the relationship unjust Iguennha society for the benefit of employers, but this situation is the same will pay the worker for a revolution in one day because he is an unjust situation, and the right of this factor that arises.

That which is being in almost all countries of the world is through a process of oppression, exploitation and theft, a situation that in addition to being unacceptable logically, condemn all religions and all religions and prohibited. The Koran says: (and do not eat up your property among yourselves unjustly), which condemns all relationships so that their results should be eating the money unlawfully, and there is no greater than the void to take the man who produces more than any other that is less than others. There is no vanity more than to take the man that does not work, money that has to work to build the houses rent for him. A person subject to the process of exploitation of these is essential for him to revolt, revolution generated as a result of a feeling of injustice, and therefore true to say that (injustice is the bomber Revolution ). relations unjust not have the reaction but revolution, and therefore predictable, anywhere in the world where there is injustice and relations unjust that the revolution which is coming no doubt. The condemnation of relations unjust, and to demand their destruction and elimination does not mean as you might understand the superficial, that we spend on the tip of the parties physically does not mean that at the same time that the harm to the party that the process of exploitation, as if separated from his work or taken from his own. That if, that is a replacement of the relationship the relationship of other unjust unjust, and that nature does not get rid of injustice, injustice does not change the injustice. What is required of the employer – which is over on the right of others – is to return what he took unjustly. Is not permissible for any person to retain a larger share of the share of the wealth of other community, because that if I just happen as a result of the apportionment is fair. That the normal relationship requires that the fair stands every member of society when alone, and not to abuse the limits of others. When the work every member of society in accordance with this rule, be a fair division, the individual does not take more than its fair share.

Forms of exploitation :

What Dhanah and above is a form of exploitation, but exploitation and take pictures of various and multiple forms. And the theft can occur in any form of exploitation. All economic activity is motivated by profit is exploitative activity can be disrupted on the way that the result of dividing the wealth of society to its members, so it was the recognition of profit recognition of exploitation. The laws of exploitation allow individuals to engage in private trade, and allow them to achieve profits from this craft. Anyone who touches the same desire and ability to engage in commercial activity Bdaa profit has the right under the laws of exploitation, that apply to the competent authorities in the country, and to take a license Thus, under this license shall be entitled by law to goods that come from their sources, domestic or foreign, and sells more than they can handle in order to obtain them from the expenses, thus achieving greater profit than he could. When the consumer to accept the purchase of goods then it does so because it is the need of needs that can not do without them. Is compelled in order to get paid because the value requested by the dealer price for the commodity. The consumer does not know the true cost of the item carried by the merchant. When the consumer trying to reduce the bargaining price of the product sometimes, then it does so from a starting point questioned the justice of the value required by the dealer price for this item. But the merchant from the monopolistic position which enabled him to capture the consumer’s need often succeed in making money, and this is what explains the survival of the merchant trader. If zero, profit is not in front of the merchant, but to give up his shop or his shop, looking for other activity done in order to satisfy his needs, like the rest of the members of the community. And often try to merchant to convince the consumer in various ways that the amount paid a price for the commodity is a fair value that can not be compared in the market any other value for the same item or similar, and that the goods offered to the consumer are different from the goods offered by the other was a merchant at times, based on ignorance of the consumer market conditions, trying to convince him that he pays a price for the commodity is less than its real value, and thus impress the consumer as is the winner and not the merchant himself, an attempt to cover and camouflage.

The analysis of activity by the merchant brings us to the conclusion of the utmost importance, namely, that the merchant has the process of exploitation of the consumer’s need, has been able through the exploitation of the accumulation of money in his pocket, money that are in the possession of the merchant were not only a result of increases accumulated by Profit from the merchant who was able to achieve to exploit the consumer’s need. It was not the store or shop only trap used to catch the merchant by the consumer, the consumer does not need that existed in this (trap) for income the consumer to be an easy prey or prey to the dealer. It was not free to the consumer when he entered or selected to those (the trap) because he needs the item compelled him to enter .. And (lies in the need for freedom). The activity carried out by the merchant is inherently non-productive activity, because it depends on the production of others. Merchant does not sell his produce, but sells others. The merchant is a mediator between the producer and the consumer. We have managed this dealer, discovered for the role of exploitation, to be able to accumulate money and to take a share of the wealth of society is greater than the share of others, without the process of production, and thus was able to capture more than the needs of the production of other Vaqd natural rule which says : (which is produced is consumed) and then do what the dealer is a particular theft. The laws that permit the private trade practice laws that allow the theft, and a healthy society should not be allowed to build those (traps) which are used as a means to hunt for those in need. The needy should be free needs to become free, and they are not obliged to pay to their needs is greater than its true value. And the consumer when he realizes the nature of the activity by the merchant and the nature of the relationship unjust between him and the dealer will rebel against such a relationship exists revolution, calling for their destruction to the place a new relationship makes trade a public service assigned to the other to offer to the community, so they are not a source of exploitation, and thus held public markets that provide goods to those in need at a cost of production. Every economic activity that would affect the final result of the apportionment of the natural, so as to lead to the control of a person to share more than others from the wealth of society is an economic activity that is inconsistent with the normal rules that should be prevalent in a healthy society, and this activity is by its nature will lead to an imbalance in the possibility of individuals to satisfy the needs of the wealth of society. It should not be reliable in the relationship humanity on the ability of individuals to acquire things is not the right, but the integrity of the rule that was on the basis of possession, which is what gives legitimacy to the individual to keep the things that occurred in possession, if the ability of the individual alone is the principle on which a reliable to keep things a man has access to your home and control it during the period of your absence from home was lawful, and true ownership of this man for your home as long as able to keep. But this is not a legitimate act because it is the result of a non-intact. The violation of the sanctity of the home base is acceptable and does not give a sound basis for the formation of a social acceptable. The wealth of the community should remain the property of each of its members and the share of each individual in each period of time, of this wealth is a result of dividing the wealth of the society. Not be economic activity active sound only if this ratio remained intact, but change does not change the size of wealth or the number of members of the community.

If the capacity of the individual has enabled him to change the equation in favor of the activity done by this individual is considered illegal, and because the percentage change previous be impossible in the absence of the theft. The potential of the community should always be present to satisfy the needs of its members, and thus may not for any individual to encroach on this potential. And capabilities of the individual does not give truly exceeds its limit to satisfy his needs because the legitimate purpose of any economic activity carried out by individuals is to satisfy their needs only (as the world’s wealth is limited, at least at every stage, as well as the wealth of each individual society, and therefore not entitled to any individual to do an economic activity to acquire the amount of that wealth more than satisfy his needs because the amount in excess of the needs is the right of the members of the others). If the potential of society and wealth enough to build one room only per individual each of its members. He was one of four members of the community have the rooms we find. At the same time. Who owns a cottage or does not have anything at all, and this is the situation in all parts of the world so far. That a quarter of the population of Egypt, for example, at present living in buildings, palaces and three-quarters of the population of the rest live in the houses of clay, or in huts, while The palaces and buildings constructed in the most important Egyptian cities are the property of all Egyptians, including peasants who live in mud houses and huts. This was the same situation is to put the Libyans, where he was a tenth owns buildings and circuits luxury, and the rest live in tents and huts in the ancient cities, knowing that the materials are constructed by those buildings and circuits are the property of the Libyans, and that each individual of whom share in it.

Expropriation and Compensation:

When we find a situation disturbed such a situation, and we find who owns two houses or three houses, and looking for a house rented because he does not have a house of residence, there is only one explanation for this situation is that who owns the two houses had been taken right from does not have and that it may take more than its share of the wealth of society, and society will have the right to snatch plus what was the need, because what has increased the need may be of this wealth that is right for all individuals. When the community to do so do not be obliged to compensate those who have more than he needs, as long as you grabbed. Is right for others, because the compensation does not have sound unless it is the individual’s right to retain something that has been extracted by. The imbalance in the distribution of the wealth of society is the result of theft of others’ needs. This is a factor threatening the existence of Olney was stolen from their needs, a situation as well as this leads to the bondage of another human being. He who has the control you need and be able to impose conditions on you, in which every moment is able to threaten you grabbing this need. And thus become free, because your life is threatened and become miserable, man is not free unless freed from the control needs of others. The house, clothing, food and sustenance, are all essential needs of man and must have owned that property is sacred. When has the rights to the increased need of these things, it means depriving others of them, and the right of the community then taken away from them.

Transfer of ownership of things:

Aloxiaean transfer of ownership, wills and inheritance and gift buying, selling and other means of transfer of ownership remain valid and legitimate as long as the principle that wealth is divided on the basis of community among its members is true. The appointment of members of the community right in the wealth of society does not mean the abolition of inheritance. ولكن قضية الارث تصبح في ظل هذا المبدأ قضية إدارية بحثة تنبع